Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commission Structure Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Butte-Silver Bow commissioners debate shrinking 12-seat panel in favor of fewer, paid members
Summary
Multiple commissioners told the study commission on June 23 that the county's 12 part‑time commissioner model limits oversight and policy work, and several said a smaller, paid council (five to eight members) would permit deeper engagement. Speakers disagreed about district vs. at‑large election methods and warned of costs and loss of local ties.
Commissioner Russell O'Leary, a member of the Butte‑Silver Bow Council of Commissioners, told the Study Commission on June 23 that the county's 12 part‑time commissioners struggle to do the work the public expects and said a smaller, paid council would be more effective.
"I believe 5, maybe 6, full time or 3 quarter time commissioners will be much more effective than 12 very part time commissioners," O'Leary said, arguing commissioners now have insufficient hours to review technical materials or follow up with staff between meetings.
The comment came during a round‑robin of sitting commissioners invited to discuss charter change options. The discussion focused on two central tradeoffs: whether fewer commissioners who are paid a living wage would improve oversight and policy development, and whether reducing seats would weaken geographic representation.
Why it matters: Commissioners said the current, largely volunteer model forces members to rely heavily on department staff and limits time for policy development and constituent outreach. Multiple speakers tied the capacity question to pay: O'Leary suggested a living wage in the $60,000–$80,000 range to attract qualified, full‑time candidates; others said any pay increase must be evaluated against county budget constraints.
Commissioner Jim Fisher (District 6) and Commissioner Chad Silk each said they favor fewer commissioners but differed on electoral structure. Fisher argued at‑large elections would encourage commissioners to serve the whole county, while O'Leary and Commissioner Michelle Shea said at‑large seats risk privileging the areas with higher turnout and could dilute rural representation. O'Leary proposed “pie‑shaped” districts — radial slices from a weighted population center — as one alternative to preserve rural voice.
Cost and representation were recurrent themes. "If we go that route, I think we do need to pay a living wage to attract talented and hardworking people," O'Leary said. Several commissioners countered that raising pay and reducing seats would increase the county payroll materially and should be presented transparently to voters. Commissioner Patrice (Patty) Thatcher, representing a mixed urban district, said she worried that fewer seats would reduce opportunities for new entrants and could accelerate turnover in institutional knowledge.
No formal motion, vote or ordinance was proposed during the meeting. Commissioners generally agreed that any change would require voter approval under the charter and that the study commission should surface multiple options — including keeping 12 part‑time seats, moving to a smaller full‑time council, or creating a hybrid (part‑/full‑time) model — for public consideration.
Discussion points recorded by the study commission included: the proposed salary range (discussed at $60,000–$80,000 by several commissioners), options for district mapping (retaining wards, at‑large seats, or radial "pie" districts), and the fiscal impact of adding salaries and benefits. Commissioners also emphasized transition planning, with multiple speakers asking how representation would be protected during any redistricting.
The Study Commission did not set a timeline or vote on a recommendation at the June 23 meeting. Members said they will keep gathering testimony at upcoming public listening sessions before finalizing options to put before voters.
